With regard to the decision to send Canadian Forces personnel to Afghanistan: (a) what specific evaluations of the additional requirements and costs for health-care services for the Forces (funding and budget, health-care staff and professionals, their areas of specialization, organizational structure, evaluation tools, recruiting programs, and any other aspects) were conducted before or after this decision, including evaluations of (i) the requirements of the mission in Canada and in the field, (ii) the long-term needs of service personnel and veterans following the mission, (iii) mental-health assessments; (b) what were the findings and recommendations of these evaluations, and (i) what recommendations were implemented and to what extent, (ii) what recommendations were not implemented and why, (iii) what follow-up was conducted on the recommendations that were implemented; (c) what programs and recruitment campaigns were introduced for health-care staff and professionals; and (d) how many health-care staff and professionals were recruited while Canadian Forces personnel were deployed to Afghanistan, and to what extent has the number of medical staff and health-care professionals increased compared with the number of uniformed Canadian Forces service persons deployed?

Mr. Speaker, the provision of health care services for the mission in Afghanistan was not determined by a specific evaluation, but by on ongoing and continuous assessments to ensure that Canadian Forces members received appropriate health care services. The Canadian Forces deployed to Afghanistan quickly following the attacks of September 11, 2001, as part of a larger international effort. Since then, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have adapted in all areas related to deployed operations to meet the increased operational requirements associated with the mission in Afghanistan. As part of this ongoing reorientation and adjustment since the Canadian Forces first deployed to Afghanistan, health care programs and services available to all Canadian Forces members have evolved considerably based on ongoing assessments of evolving operational requirements.

The Canadian Forces monitored all aspects of health care for its personnel deployed to Afghanistan, those returning from deployments, and those remaining in Canada. As a result of this ongoing review and monitoring, processes and programs were adapted or developed to ensure the health care provided is appropriate and of a high quality.

With respect to improving treatment of combat casualties, Canada partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense joint theatre trauma system, which resulted in immediate improvement in the treatment of in-theatre casualties.

With respect to improving recording or tracking of individual medical information, the Canadian Forces health information system was deployed forward during the Afghan mission. It was successfully implemented and has become the standard of medical record keeping for all operations.

With respect to treatment of the complex physical injuries of those returning from Afghanistan, several physical rehabilitation initiatives were implemented to offer optimal care to injured personnel. The Canadian Forces notably made the following progress. It established the position of head of physical rehabilitation in 2008 to develop a multidisciplinary program of rehabilitation care to those with injuries. This led to the implementation of the Canadian Forces physical rehabilitation program in 2009 and the establishment of 20 physical rehabilitation positions in support of seven rehabilitation centres of expertise. It also acquired two virtual reality medical treatment systems, computer assisted rehabilitation environments, in partnership with civilian rehabilitation hospitals in Ottawa and Edmonton. These systems are used in the rehabilitation of Canadian Forces personnel with both physical and mental injuries.

With respect to mental health care, the Canadian Forces launched a number of initiatives to improve the immediate and long-term treatment needs for its personnel. The Canadian Forces notably made the following progress. It included deployed mental health teams in all Afghanistan rotations since 2003. In addition, five Operational Trauma and Stress Support Centres were established, focusing on the treatment of operational stress injuries. The mental health presence also increased at major bases and stations across Canada. It increased clinician training and mental health care education for military health care professionals undergoing training at the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Centre in Borden. It established in 2006 the third-location decompression program for Canadian Forces members returning to Canada after a lengthy deployment to ease the transition and ensure access to mental health professionals. It established the requirement that all Canadian Forces members returning from an international operation of 60 or more days undergo the enhanced post-deployment screening process as per the screening and reintegration policy of 2006 and based on a screening program that began in 2002. It established a series of joint network for operational stress injuries clinics across Canada in 2006 to provide a core set of specialized interdisciplinary mental health services for psychological trauma related to operational stress injuries. It established the cognitive behavioural therapy program in 2007 to provide treatment of a wide range of health and mental health problems. It instituted the mild traumatic brain injury clinical guidelines and surveillance in 2008 to improve treatment of concussions resulting from exposures to blasts. It developed the Road to Mental Readiness in 2009 to provide training to Canadian Forces personnel on mental health conditions, as well as traumatic and non-traumatic stress, with the objectives of decreasing stigma, overcoming barriers to mental health care, enhancing psychological resilience and providing tools to assist Canadian Forces members and families. It launched the ongoing operational stress incidence study in 2009 to provide information on the impact of deployment to Afghanistan on the mental health of Canadian Forces members, and it conducted the operational mental health survey in 2010 to identify symptoms of mental health problems in Canadian Forces members serving in Afghanistan and to determine the utilization of and perceived need for mental health services.

The Canadian Forces conducted an active recruitment campaign to address shortages in health services occupations, which coincided with the mission in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the number of health care professionals in the Canadian Forces has increased by over 360, representing an increase of over 15%.

The extent to which the number of medical staff and health care professionals has increased compared to the number of Canadian Forces personnel deployed is not available.

With regard to the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk: (a) was the budget allocated to the Program increased or decreased in 2012 and 2013; (b) was the budget allocated to the Program transferred to another program; (c) what impact, in terms of financial and human resources, will the 2012 federal budget have on the Program; (d) have the application criteria or evaluation procedures changed and if so, what are the new application criteria or evaluation procedures; (e) has the selection process, in partnership with the provinces, changed; (f) have Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada or the Parks Canada Agency been consulted on changes to the Program; (g) what considerations justify these changes; (h) have the relevant departments signed agreements with communities under this program; (i) has a value for money assessment been completed for the Program; and (j) must the relevant departments respond to funding requests by a specific date?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the budget allocated to the program did not change in 2012-13. In March 2012, a portion of habitat stewardship program, HSP, funding, $4 million, which was to sunset was renewed and these funds are being included in the supplementary estimates (B).

With regard to (b), this is n/a as there was no change in the budget as stated in (a). To note though, $144,000 of the 2012-13 $11,769,000 HSP budget was allocated to other Species at Risk Act, SARA, priorities, namely, continuing work with key first nations to build capacity to effectively participate in the development and piloting of SARA section 11 conservation agreements.

With regard to (c), budget 2012 renewed $25 million annually in funding for 2012-13 and the next two fiscal years to implement the Species at Risk Act. This renewal included $4 million per year for the continued implementation of the HSP.

With regard to (d), the only change for the 2012-13 year was that the program used five-year HSP regional investment plans, RIPs, to guide priorities for project election rather than the annual regional priority. Projects recommended for funding were well aligned with the priorities identified in the RIPs. The evaluation grid that is used across the country to evaluate each project submission is updated annually to address minor changes in program direction or administration, but no criteria were changed for the 2012-13 year.

With regard to (e), there have been no changes to the selection process, which is undertaken in partnership with the provinces.

With regard to (f), all three federal agencies co-manage the program in partnership and are involved in setting national and regional priorities, and the evaluation of the projects. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, and Parks Canada, PCA, all participated in the drafting and approval of the regional investment plans, which was the only change to the program for 2012-13 as stated in (d).

With regard to (g), the changes were in response to increased demand for funding using limited resources. There was a need to strategically align priorities and funding; the RIPs were developed to address the need to demonstrate over the long term a more strategic investment and guide future decision-making by identifying priorities for funding for a five-year period.

With regard to (i), no value-for-money assessment has been done for the program, but the audit function of the 2009 program evaluation looked at cost-effectiveness of the program and evaluated whether the most efficient means were being used to achieve results. The evaluation concluded that the evidence gathered indicated that the program was being delivered cost-efficiently and offers good value for money.

With regard to (j), there is no set date for departments to respond to funding requests. Environment Canada carefully reviews its entire grants and contributions budget each year to ensure that funding addresses the federal government’s priorities for clean air, climate change, clean water and biodiversity, which includes habitat conservation. Only after this review is complete, can proponents be notified of the results of their application.

With regard to the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program: (a) will the Program be extended beyond 2013; (b) will the Program be replaced by another program beyond 2013; (c) was the Program budget increased or decreased in 2012 or 2013; (d) was the Program budget transferred to another program; (e) what impact, in terms of financial resources or human resources, will the 2012 budget have on the Program; (f) were there any changes to the criteria or application evaluation procedure and, if so, what were those changes; (g) did Public Safety Canada hold any consultations regarding the changes to the Program; (h) what are the considerations that justify these changes; (i) was a value-for-money assessment conducted on the Program; and (j) are the departments involved required to respond to funding applications by a specific date?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is no. With regard to (b), the answer is no. With regard to (c), the answer is no. With regard to (d), the answer is no.

With regard to (e), in line with budget 2012, federal contributions under the joint emergency preparedness program, JEPP, will end in 2013. Two indeterminate positions were affected by this decision.

With regard to (f), the answer is no.

With regard to (g), before the planned saving measures were announced, consultations occurred with elected officials.

With regard to (h), the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of an integrated and resilient approach to emergency management. Emergency management is a shared responsibility between all levels of government, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and individual citizens. The Government of Canada also recognizes that most emergencies in Canada are managed by municipalities or at the provincial or territorial level. As such, the Government of Canada has supplemented provincial emergency preparedness since 1980 by investing over $175 million in emergency planning, training and specialized equipment through the JEPP.

Moving forward, the Government of Canada is developing a long-term national disaster mitigation program through engagement with provinces and territories, recognizing that mitigation can lessen the impact of natural disasters and reduce the costs associated with these events. In addition, up to $99.2 million will be provided over three years to assist provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation measures undertaken for the 2011 flood season.

With regard to (i), the Government of Canada recognizes that most emergencies in Canada are managed by municipalities or at the provincial or territorial level. The original objectives of this program, namely, to enhance local emergency preparedness and response capacity, have been met. As this is a provincial responsibility, communities are aware of the need to invest in preparedness.

With regard to (j), the JEPP will conclude on March 31, 2013. As all projects must be completed prior to March 31, 2013, applications will not be accepted beyond March 15, 2013.

With regard to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts: (a) what has the Department of Justice identified as the policy objectives or desired outcomes of Bill C-10 and what indicator has been identified to measure progress; (b) what has the Department identified as the overall legal costs for defending Bill C-10 from legal challenges; (c) when assessing the compliance of Bill C-10 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 4 of the Department of Justice Act, what measures were used to assess whether delays in trial processes and prison overcrowding would violate Charter-guaranteed rights; (d) what is the measure of post-sentence recidivism rates used now by the Department of Public Safety, and how is the success of Bill C-10 to be defined and measured; (e) what are the numbers of Aboriginal, women, addicted, cognitively-impaired or mentally-ill offenders in remand or federal custody facilities that are being used as a base against which to assess whether Bill C-10 increases or decreases those numbers; and (f) how is the government assessing benefits to victims of crime resulting from Bill C-10?

With regard to air safety: (a) from 2006 until now, how many air traffic controllers have been employed, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; (b) from 2006 until now, how many air traffic controllers have been employed at Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, broken down by year; (c) from 2006 until now, how many aviation incidents have been reported, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) how many aviation incidents reported from 2006 until now occurred at Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, broken down by year?

With regard to Canadian missions abroad (embassies, consulates and delegations within international and regional organizations) and for each of these missions and for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2012-2013, inclusively: (a) how many positions were related to culture; (b) what were the titles of these positions; (c) where were they located in the mission’s hierarchy; (d) what were the duties of these positions; (e) how many artistic or cultural projects received support from the people occupying these positions; (f) what form of support did these projects receive; (h) how many Canadian works of art were on display in the rooms of the mission; (i) how many public activities promoting Canadian culture took place and what were these activities; (j) how many private activities promoting Canadian culture took place and what were these activities; and (k) how much of the mission’s budget was allocated to cultural activities or programs, (i) what were the names of these programs, (ii) how much funding was allocated to each of these programs?

With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC): (a) how many CIC positions will be eliminated in 2012 and subsequent years, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; (b) how will the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, which co-chaired the CIC’s British Columbia region, fit into the new structure if the British Columbia region disappears; (c) has the impact of merging services for the Atlantic region with the Quebec region been analyzed and, if so, what were the findings; (d) what impact will merging services for the Atlantic and Quebec regions have on francophone immigration; (e) what structures will be implemented to avoid competition between the Atlantic and Quebec regions for francophone immigrants if the decision-making centre is transferred to the province of Quebec; and (f) how will cuts to the Destination Canada Job Fair budget be offset in order to ensure that the Atlantic provinces can continue to attract francophone immigrants in light of competition from the province of Quebec for francophone immigrants?

With regard to the Governor in Council appointment process for the Privy Council Office from 2005 to 2013 inclusively: (a) how many people work at the Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat, and what is the language profile for each of their positions; (b) how many appointments were made; (c) what is the list of all the positions granted through Governor in Council appointments and how many positions are on the list; (d) how many of the job postings include or included language requirements, (i) how are these requirements worded, (ii) what criteria were used to determine these requirements, (iii) are the language requirements for each of these positions recorded, (iv) were the federal institutions involved consulted before the language requirements were determined, (v) was the Treasury Board Secretariat consulted regarding the drafting of these postings, (vi) was the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages consulted regarding the drafting of these postings; (e) are there guidelines for the linguistic designation of positions as regards official languages and, if so, (i) what are they, (ii) who created them, (iii) are they systematically consulted before each appointment; (f) what is the proportion of appointments for each of the provinces and territories; (g) what is the proportion of anglophones and francophones who are appointed and how is this information recorded; and (h) is the proportion of bilingual anglophones and francophones on boards of directors appointed by the Governor in Council recorded and, if so, what is it?

With regard to the Interchange Canada Program: (a) how many temporary assignments of core public administration employees were there to other public, not-for-profit or private sector organizations, and what were the program’s recipient organizations and the number of employees by organization for the years (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011; and (b) how many temporary assignments of employees of public (other than core public administration), private and not-for-profit sector organizations were there, and what were the program’s core public administration recipient organizations and the number of employees by organization for the years (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011?